
Gass r fi ^t'i:\ 



Book. 



2A-(_Vi5_ 



60th Congress, 

^d Session. 



SENATE. 



Document 

No. 736. 



ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BENEFITS OF ACTS DONATING 
PUBLIC LANDS TO THE SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES. 



Mr. BuRNHAM presented the following 
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF HOUSE BILL 28176. 



Febkuary 24, 1909. — Ordered to be printed. 



Brief on behalf of House hill 28176, " To amend the Morrill Act of 
1862,°' entitled ''An act donating public lands to the several States 
and Territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agri- 
culture and the mechanic arts^ and the acts supplementary thereto, so 
as to admit the District of Columbia to the benefits thereof.^'' 

Three points by way of introduction: 

1. This bill does not add a dollar to the taxes of the people, either 
federal or local. 

2. Neither now nor at any future time would the bill take away a 
penny from the other "land-grant" institutions already being aided 
out of the Morrill fund. 

3. The bill would simply make it possible for the District of Colum- 
bia, as an important, separate, and integral portion of the country, to 
get its equitable share of a trust fund that was set apart by the Fed- 
eral Government for the purpose of bringing the special forms of 
education contemplated by the Morrill Acts within reach of all the 
separate portions of the land. 

The bill involves four general questions, which it is now proposed 
to discuss in the following brief: 

1. Should the District of C9LUMBIA be put upon an Equal Footing with the 
States and Territories jn regard to Appropriations under the Morrill Acts? 

A square deal to the \people of the District admits of no other 
answer than an affirmative. 

If the quasi territorial form of government for the District had not 
been abolished in 1874, no such bill as the pending one would now be 
necessary. Without any additional action by Congress, the District 
could now claim and would receive its full share of the Morrill fund, 
in proportion to the actual work done along the lines of the Morrill 

'^For brevity of description the original Morrill land-grant act of 1862 and the 
various acts supplementar}' thereto are all referred to in this brief as "the Morrill 

Acta." 



.-^-^"s- vm 



2 ADMITTING DISTRICT OF C0L\JMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

Acts. The fact that Congress has changed the mere form of govern- 
ment for the District ought not to deprive the people of the District 
of the advantages which they would otherwise have under those acts. 

Politically, the District is a kind of "No Man's Land," with no 
representatives in Congress to speak in her beh ilf . That fact only 
strengthens our right to a generously just treatment at the hands of 
Congress. Now that there is here in Washington a nonsectarian insti- 
tution already doing good work in the mechanic arts, and ready to do 
still more, the technical disabilities of the District, in regard to its 
status under the Morrill Acts, ought in justice to be at once corrected 
by the proposed amendatory act, so as to put the District on an equal 
footing with the States and regular Territories. 

It is true, as has just been said, that the District is " No Man's 
Land." And yet there are thousands of the citizens of other States 
who are simply sojourning at the capital while doing the Government's 
work. For example, many citizens of Massachusetts and Iowa iiave 
simply removed their residences temporarily to Washington and are 
now in the government service on slender salaries. They can not 
afford to send their children away from Washington in order to secure 
for them the benefits of the various forms of education contemplated 
by the Morrill Acts. 

Is there any just reason wh}^ such citizens should be deprived of the 
benefits of those forms of education (for example, the mechanic arts), 
simply because they are no longer privileged to live within reach of 
the great schools established for that purpose in their several States, 
but are now living in exile at the national capital. 

2. Is AN INSTITUTION THAT DOES NOT YET TEACH AGRICULTURE ELIGIBLE FOR AN APPRO- 
PRIATION UNDER THE MoRRILL ACTS? 

The wonderful work done in the last twelve years by the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, under the wise and vigorous leadership of Sec- 
retary Wilson, who has made that department the most wonderful of 
its kind in all the world, has very naturally created the widespread 
impression that the encouragement of agriculture was almost the ex- 
clusive purpose of the Morrill Acts. An examination of those acts 
will show how utterly erroneous such an impression would be. 

Attention is respectfully called to the following words in section 4 
of the underlying Morrill Act of 1862, in which its author describes 
the fundamental and comprehensive purpose of the act to be the teach- 
ing of "such branches of learning as are related to agriculture cmc? 
the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may 
respectively prescribe, in order to promote tlie liberal and practical 
education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions 
in life.'''' [The italics are not in the original.] 

Note first, that in this authoritative description of the purpose of 
the act agriculture and the mechanic arts stand upon an absolute 
equality. 

But the closing phrase, " in order to promote the liberal and prac- 
tical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and pro- 
fessions in life," is even more fundamental. Observe the significant 
plurals, "the industrial classes "and "the several pursuits and pro- 
fessions," Plainly, prospective farmers are not to be the only bene- 
fi.ciaries of the Morrill Acts; all the /' industrial classes" are included. 

MAP ?: 1909 

% m 0. 



ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS, 3 

^ And it is quite as evident that the industrial classes were not to be 
vij required b}^ the Morrill Acts to confine their attention to agriculture; 
O they are also to be prepared for other ''pursuits and professions " in 
the field covered by the broad term "mechanic arts." 

SENATOR MORRILL'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND-GRANT ACT OF 18(1'2. 

In an address delivered October 24, 1890, before the committee on 
education of the Vermont house of representatives, Senator Morrill 
said: 

I am-svery willing and ready to give out the words that bespeak the faith that is in 
me in relation to what are ordinarily calUd the "agricultural colleges." I may say 
that the index maker of the Congressional Globe in 1862 gave them that title, and it 
has seemed to stick ever since; the colleges were emphatically "land-grant " 



The object of the introduction of the bill in 1862 was to give a chance to the indus- 
trial classes of the country to obtain a liberal education, something more than what 
was bestowed by our universities and colleges in general, which seemed to be more 
based on the English plan of giving education only to what might be called the pro- 
fessional classes, in law, medicine, and theology. 

* * * -K- * * -;t 

To establish something that will amount to nothing more than an agricultural 
school for our State, I should regard as a revolution and subversive of the whole idea 
of the land-grant act of 1862, which was of a much broader kind. It included, to be 
sure, the idea that agriculture and the mechanic arts were to have a leading, or first, 
position, but it also included much more. 

It was for the industrial classes, to promote their instruction generally, and it was 
not to exclude even the classics. Therefore I should regard any change from the 
original act as a diversion of the fund and a revolution of the whole practical idea. 

On another occasion Senator Morrill said: 

It is perhaps needless to say that these colleges were not established or endowed 
for the sole purpose of teachiny: agriculture. Their object was to give an opportunity 
for those engaged in indu-trial pursuits to obtain some knovviedgt; of the practical 
sciences related to agriculture and mechanic arts— su(;h as they could not then obtain 
at most of our institutions called classical colleges, where the languages, Greek and 
Latin, French and German, absorbed perhaps two-thirds of all the time of the stu- 
dents while in college. 

It never was intended to force the boys of farmers going into these institutions so 
to study that they should all come out farmers. It was merely intended to give 
them an opportunity to do so, and to do it with advantage if they saw fit. 

Obviously, not manual but intellectual instruction was the paramount object. It 
was not provided that agricultural labor in the field should be practically taught, any 
more than the mechanical trade of a carpenter or a blacksmith should be taught. 
Secondly, it was a liberal education that was proposed. Classical studies were not 
to be excluded, and, therefore, must ba included. The act of 1862 proposed a system 
of broad education by colleges not limited to a superficial and dwarfed training such 
as might be had at an industrial school, nor a mere manual training such as might 
be supplied by a foreman of a workshop or by a foreman of an experimental farm. 
If any would have only a school with equal scraps of labor and of instruction, or 
something other than a college, they would not obey the national law. Experience 
in manual labor, in the handling of tools and implements, is not to be disparaged; 
in the proper time and place it is most essential, and generally something of this 
may be obtained either before or after the college term, but should not largely inter- 
fere with the precious time required for a definite amount of scientific and literary 
culture, which all earnest students are apt to find far too liiuited. 

From Report of Bureau of Educatioa, 1900, vol. 2, page 1329: 

So clear was Mr. Morrill's views on this point that, in the title of the bill he intro- 
duced December 15, 1873, he called the institutions "national colleges for the 
advancement of general scientific and industrial education," and he used to say that 
the name "agricultural colleges" would never have been applied to the institutions 
except that it had happened to suit the casual convenience of an. index clerk. 



4 ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 
THE ACTUAL ADMIN ISTKATION OF THE MORRILL ACTS. 

The determining test as to the meaning of the Morrill Acts is to be 
found in the policy adopted b}- the Government in the actual adminis- 
tration of those acts, which shows conclusivel.y that the Government 
has interpreted them in such a broad manner as to give a very large 
place to subjects outside of agriculture. 

Careful attention is called to the circular letter of instruction issued 
by the Bureau of Education of the Interior Department to the various 
officials of the " land-grant colleges;" it is the one still in use by the 
department. 

That letter mentions 52 subjects which "may be included" in 
the curriculum of such colleges, under the following-named "sched- 
ules:" Agriculture (in the broadest sense), mechanic arts, English 
language, mathematical sciences, natural and ph3'sical sciences, and 
the economic sciences. (See Appendix to this brief.) 

It may as well be stated in this connection that the George Wash- 
ington University already has strong courses in 31 out of the 52 
subjects thus prescribed b}^ the Bureau of Education — for instruction 
in which the appropriations received from the Morrill fund could 
properly be used. 

It should be noted in passing that in this circular letter of instruc- 
tion, veterinary science is quite properly listed under agriculture in 
the broad sense of the word. Although not professing at the present 
time to teach agriculture (in the more usual meaning of the word), yet 
the George Washington University, according to this authoritativ^e 
circular of the Bureau of Education, might very properly claim to have 
crossed the frontier of the agricultural sciences by means of its new 
veterinary college, which gives promise of very large usefulness to 
this whole section of the country. 

We feel sure that later on there will be a strong demand for gradu- 
ate work in " advanced agricultural science" — work which could be 
carried on most etiectively by an institution located at the capital, and 
which might possibl}^ have the unofficial cooperation of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. As soon as funds are available we shall enter 
this important field of "advanced agricultural science." 

The following figures, furnished by the Bureau of Education in its 
report for the year 1907 (see vol. 2, p. 873), show what percentage of 
the total appropriation received from the Federal Government was 
expended that year on agriculture and what percentage on the other 
subjects mentioned in or permitted under the Morrill Acts: 

For agriculture, only 17.7 per cent. 
Mechanic arts, 30.9 per cent. 
Natural and physical sciences, 23.2 per^cent. 
Mathematical sciences, 11.6 per cent. 
English language, 10.9 per cent.| 
Economic sciences, 5.7 per cent. 

As showing the same liberal attitude toward the mechanic arts called 
for under the Morrill Acts, attention is called to the table of students 
on pages 909, 910 of Bureau of Education Keport for 1907, volume 2, 
which shows the great preponderance of students studying mechanic 
arts as compared with the numbers studying agriculture in these 



ADMITTING DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

"knd-grant" institutions. Note especially the statistics for the fol- 
lowing institutions : 

Florida University bas 19 students in mechanic arts and only 2 in agriculture. 
Wyoming University has 11 in mechanic arts and only 5 in agriculture. 
Idaho University has 100 in mechanic arts and only 8 in agriculture. 
Delaware College has 94 in mechanic arts and only 1 in agriculture. 

As is shown on page 9 of this brief, The George Washington Uni- 
versity has 345 students in the mechanic arts. 

But the Government has gone even further; it has approved appro- 
priations to the following-named institutions which during the year 
ending June, 1^07, expended nothing at all for agriculture, although 
receiving large grants from the Morrill fund: 

Alabama Polytechnic. 

(xlrkansas) Branch Normal College. 

(.Missouri) Lincoln Institute. 

Nevada University. 

West Virginia University. 

(Texas) Prairie View Htate Normal and Industrial College. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technologv. 

(See Bureau of Education Report for"l907, Vol. II, 920.) 

Arizona University might properly be added to the foregoing list; 
for, although it received $25,000 from the Morrill fund during 1907, 
it only expended |2.5S for agriculture. 

Of these eight institutions there were two which, during 1907, did 
not have any students at all in agriculture, namely: Arizona University 
and Branch Normal College; as a matter of course there are-no agri- 
cultural students in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

The action of the federal authorities in approving the appropriations 
to these nonagricultural institutions leaves no doubt whatever as to the 
propriety and entire legality of granting an appropriation to another 
nonagricultural institution. And yet, as already pointed out — accord- 
ing to the broad interpretation given by the Interior Department to 
term " agriculture " — The George Washington University, b}" means 
of its veterinary college, has already crossed the frontier of the agri- 
cultural sciences, in the large sense of that phrase. 

3. What is the Scope of the Term "Mechanic Arts" as Used in the 
Morrill Acts? 

This question has been answered conclusively^ by the federal author- 
ities in their administration of those acts. 

In the tables given on pages 909-912, in volume 2 of the 1907 reports 
of the Bureau of Education, the following subjects are clearly held to 
be included under " the mechanic arts: " 

Mechanical engineering. General engineering. 

Civil engineering. Architecture. 

E'ectrirul engineering. Household economy. 

Mining engineering. Chemistry. 

Chemical engineering. Pharmacy. 

Sanitary engineering. General science. 
Textile engineering. 

The subjects italicized in the preceding table are all taught in the 
George Washington University. 

Our present appeal is based mainly upon our work in '* the mechanic 
arts." and under the provisions of the proposed amendator}^ act w^e 



6 ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

would only receive such proportion of the benefits accruing- thereunder 
as the good work already being done in those arts would fairly entitle 
us to receive. 

We alreadj^ have 232 students in our schools of engineering and 
architecture, each of which has a fully developed four years' course. 
These tv,^o subjects, as interpreted by the federal authorities, come 
unquestionably within the scope of the term "mechanic arts" as used 
in the Morrill Acts. In addition, we have 113 students in engineering- 
chemistry and in the "arts and crafts." 

In other words. The George Washington University already has 345 
students studying " the mechanic arts," which is more than 44 out of 
the 66 " land-grant" institutions had in the mechanic arts during 1907. 
Indeed the number of mechanic arts students now in The George 
Washington University exceeds the number of students in both 
mechanic arts and agriculture in 36 of the " land-grant" institutions 
during 1907. 

4. Is A Private iNSTiTaxioN Eligible for an Appropriation Under the Morrill 

Acts? 

The federal authorities have already answered that question very 
conclusively in the affirmative by approving annual appropriations to 
the following institutions: 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Cornell University (New York). 

Rutgers 'Scientific School (New Jersey). 

Purdue Univert-ity (Indiana). 

Clemson Agricultural College (South Carolina). 

It is true that, after being put upon the list of " land-grant" institu- 
tions, Purdue and Clemson became state-supported institutions later 
on; but Cornell, Rutgers, and the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology are still private corporations. But the policy pursued toward 
these five institutions shows conclusively that in administering the 
Morrill Acts the federal authorities have gone upon the principle that 
the essential purpose of these acts was to lend the Government's fos- 
tering hand to efforts made in the several States "to promote the 
liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several 
pursuits, and professions," but not necessarily to force each State to 
create state-supported institutions for those purposes. 

When, therefore, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Indiana, 
and South Carolina did not have state-supported institutions for those 
purposes, and when private nonsectarian schools offered to do the 
work in any of the lines called for by the Morrill Acts, the States in 
question turned ov^er to such institutions the money received for 
those purposes from the Federal Government: and such action has 
all along been approved by the federal authorities. The essential 
thing was to get the work done. The five institutions above men- 
tioned were the only ones available in their respective States for 
the purpose of carrying out the Morrill Acts. Therefore they have 
been legally utilized by Congress for those purposes, just as Congress 
uses the railroads, which are private corporations, as the "post-roads" 
which the Constitution authorizes Congress to construct, the railroads 
thereby becoming quasi-public corporations. 



ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 7 
ADDITIONAL EXABIPLES OF APPROPRIATIONS TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. 

Kentucky LTniversity (a private institution) received Kentucky's 
share of the Morrill fund until 1878, when the Agricultural and Me- 
chanical College of Kentucky was established. 

Brown University received Rhode Island's share until 1892, when 
the Rhode Island College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts was 
established. 

Yale University received Connecticut's sha>e until 1893, when what 
is now the (yonnecticut Agricultural College was established. 

To apply the principle to the present case: If Congress (as the leg- 
islature of the District) should some day decide to establish a govern- 
ment school that would do the work in the mechanic arts now being 
done by The George Washington University, then the government 
school would take the place of the university on the list of "land- 
grant" institutions. 

We think that the following propositions have been fully established: 

1. That this District, in regard to appropriations under the MorrilJ 
Acts, ought to be put upon an equal footing with the States and regular 
Territories. 

2. That an institution not jet professing to teach agriculture, in the 
restricted sense of that word, is eligible for an appropriation. 

3. That engineering, architecture, engineering-chemistry, and the 
"arts and crafts" are "mechanic arts" in the intent of the Morrill 
Acts, as interpreted bj'^ the federal authorities. 

4. That the fact that there is no government school of the mechanic 
arts in the District makes it not only legal, but eminently proper to 
use the services of a private, nonsectarian institution for the purpose 
of giving to the people of the District the benefit of the Morrill Acts. 

These four propositions being established, there can be no question 
as to the propriety and wisdom of utilizing the services of the particu- 
lar institution named in the bill. 

In the first place, no other institution in the District is now doing nor, 
so far as we are informed, proposes to do this \York. The George 
Washington University is therefore the only instrumentality now 
available for giving to the people of the District the benefit of the 
Morrill Acts. If the time ever came when another institution, which 
otherwise complied with the law, were to do the work contemplated 
by the Morrill Acts, Congress would, of course, be free to make a 
proper division of the District's share of the Morrill fund. 

The broad, comprehensive, nonsectarian charter of the reorganized 
George Washington University; the solid work it is now doing, and 
the high standard It is enforcing in all its departments; the immortal 
name it bears — a name belonging to it historically, through the cir- 
cumstances under which its first charter was taken out in 1821 and by 
reason of the avowedly national motives of its founders; the man}''- 
sided work the university has done and is doing, more and more, for 
the.District, and the practical service in the mechanic arts it is already 
rendering to those who can not afford to go to more distant schools, 
to sa}" nothing of the large service which its engineering college could 
render to the South — all these facts, when taken together, would make 



8 ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

the George Washington University an unusually appropriate instru- 
ment for at once carrjnng out one important portion of the beneficent 
purpose of the Morrill acts, namejy, the fostering of the various 
branches of the mechanic arts. 

Are not the people of the District of Columbia a part of the people 
of the United States? 

Has Congress any greater or different duty toward the people of 
the States and Territories than it has toward the people of the District? 

On the contrary, as Congress has exclusive power of legislation 
over the District of Columbia and its people, and as the Di^.trict has 
no other source of help in this matter, is not Congress under a pecul- 
iar duty to treat the people of the District with the same fairness and 
equality that it extends to other portions of the United States? 

It is hardly necessary to say, in conclusion, that even if this bill 
were passed, the George Washington University would not receive a 
pennjr from the Morrill fund until the character and scope of its work 
along the lines called for in the Morrill Acts proved entirely satisfac- 
tory to the Federal Bureau of Education. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Richard D. Harlan, 
On hehalf of the George Washington University. 

February, 1909. 



Appendix. 



EXTRACTS FROM CIRCnLAR LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
THE INTEKIOR (BUREAU OF EDUCATION) TO THE VARIOUS OFFICIALS OF THE LAND- 
GRANT INSTITUTIONS AIDED UNDER THE MORRILL ACTS. 

4. The funds are "to be applied only to instruction in agriculture, the mechanic 
arts, the English language, and the various branches of mathematical, physical, 
natural, and economic science, with special reference to their applications in the 
industries of life, and to the facilities for such instruction." 

* * * * * * * 

7. In order that greater uniformity in the reports of treasurers may be obtained in 
the future, the following classification of subjects that may be included under the 
several schedules has bc^en prepared, such classification to be adhered to by the 
treasurers of the various institutions in the preparation of their annual reports: 

[The subjects printed in italics are all taught in the George Washington University.] 

Schedule A. — Instruction in agriculture. 

1. Agriculture. 6. Dairying. 

2. Horticulture. 7. Veterinary science. 

3. Forestry. 8. Poultry industry. 

4. Agronomy. 9. Apiculture. 

5. Animal husbandry. 

Schedule B. — Instruction in Mechanic Arts. 

1. Mechanical engineering. 10. Architecture. 

2. IHoil engineering. 11. Machine design. 

3. Electrical engineering^ 12. Mechanical draiving. 

4. Irrigation engineering. 13. Ceramics. 

6. Mining engineering. 14. Stenography. 

6. Marine engineering. 15. Ti/pewriting. 

7. Railway engineering. 16. Telegrapfiy. 

8. Experimental engineering. 17. Printing. 

9. Textile industry. 18. Shop work. 



ADMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

Schedule C— Instruction in English Language. 

1. English language. 4. lihetoric. 

2. English literature. 5. Oratory. 
S. Compos^ition. 

Schedule D.— Instruction in Mathematical Sciences. 

1. Mathematics. 3. Astronomy. 

2. Bookkeeping. 

Schedule E.— Instruction in Natural and Physical Sciences. 

1. Chemistry. 8. Metallurgy. 

2. Fhysics."^ 9- Entomology. 

3. Biology. 10. Fhysioloyy. 

4. Butany. H- Bacteriology. 

5. Zoology. l"-2- Pharmacy. 

6. Geology. 13- Physical geography. 

7. Mineralogy. 14. Meteorology. 

Schedule F.— Instruction in Economic Sciences. 

1. Political economy. 3. Commercial geography. 

2. Domestic economy. 

o 

S. Doc. 736, 60-2 2 



